Oh I almost always understand them! 
2 Likes
I suspected it, but wasn’t sure.
1 Like
Don’t assume “understand” means “agree with” however 
Toxic masculinity is a neologism that means everything and nothing.
Of course men are more likely to be physically violent than women. Trying to educate them from an early age not to be like this will help. It’s not going to stop it, though.
Providing controlled outlets for testosterone fuelled aggression, which I would argue is natural, might also help. It’s how societies have dealt with the problem for ever. Contact sports have always existed for a reason. I don’t believe that discussion groups about socially acceptable behavior are going to be more effective. Maybe they will be, but so far it doesn’t seem to be the case. Telling young men in London not to shank each other hasn’t been successful so far.
Perhaps toxic masculinity is learned behavior, and I’m sure to a degree it is, but it’s also clearly a natural part of being a man.
Which man on here has never been in a fight? How about the women posters? Seriously, it can’t all be down to social conditioning
2 Likes
I watched a reportage on ARTE that contradicted the thesis testosterone to be responsible for aggression.
They did a study with 180 people where 90 got testosterone patches and the other a placebo.
The study indicated that testosterone makes people more social.
However in my opinion they failed to disprove if aggression in men could be a testosterone addiction, ( the inability to produce it when needed).
Nah, I know you know I’m right in most of those discussions.
I think this may be a good heuristic if by “fight” you mean “fistfight.” Females, after all, have their own ideas about fighting, ideas that have persisted so consistently, so predictably, throughout the millennia of human existence that they are noted, and avoided by, males - now and in the Bible.
1 Like
There’s considerable evidence that testosterone increases cooperation, particularly if there is the chance of an increase in social status for an individual. Obviously, it’s not going to be all bad. Aggression isn’t always physical.
1 Like
I just think men and women generally are different. I don’t believe it’s 100% socially constructed. Some things women tend to be better at than men and some the other way around. Even without evidence base data and studies, some of it are self evident from grade school.
As Bear Grylls says, the island isn’t sexist. What happens when you put all men and all women on a island?
Survivor battle of the sexes lol I remember seeing this and not believing it as it’s super stereotypical of how men and women behaved. But maybe it’s not so far from the truth?
I repeat:
Of course, if you don’t actually want to end sexist conscription and only bring it up to put them down, that’s something else.
Are you serious?
I said it’s not women’s fault that someone else did something you don’t like (or that you do like but pretend not to).
You tell me whose fault it is. 
you realize like you said women make up about half the population and people that decide the laws are voted into in almost all situations besides the ones put in place by people we all vote for. Keep ignoring the fact women make up half the vote and blame the men who got elected by everyone as proof of sexism.
It may disappoint you to know this, but I am not your feminazi fantasy. I don’t blame one gender for all the problems in the world. Why I can’t point out flaws in your arguments without being your supervillain is a good question.
Can anyone clarify exactly when the ROC started (or restarted) conscription, what the ratio of male:female legislators was, and whether it even mattered at the time (i.e. whether or not they were rubber stampers)? Maybe @hansioux?
And can anyone clarify exactly how the two year period got reduced to one, how one got reduced to 0.33, and what the plan is now?
If it turns out that brave, noble men have always been fighting to eliminate male-specific conscription, whereas a cabal of nasty women always refused to approve the change, then Andrew totally has a point. Otherwise, maybe not.
I say conscription for only one gender is sexist and unequal. True or false?
True (in case it wasn’t clear).
And that it’s not something feminists ever address that I’ve heard of unless you got an example? True or false.
That you’ve ever heard of? Probably true. And there are probably many other things you’ve never heard of either. That goes for all of us. 
You then go into how many roles will women have, the logistics of it. How many years and how long. Women has menstration, women have more time for maternity leave, etc etc. Just keep avoiding the logical conclusion that it is a sexist and unfair law towards men and feminists (not all women) will probably never take it on.
I have never served in the ROC military and never will. I need an expert like you [post edited by mod] to educate me about its inner workings, and I thank you for what you’ve told me so far, but I’m still skeptical about the way you depict it as some potential gender utopia, thwarted by the selfishness of feminists.
I brought up maternity leave and menstruation because you said there’s only one sexist law, and my point was it’s not true, yet you never talk about the other parts. Still no cherry picking, eh?
I don’t go push for men’s rights but I think if you’re going to be fighting for gender equality it’s only fair to target inequality for both genders. And there are plenty of men’s issues but you’ll never hear about it. I’m not upset about men’s paternity leave time. I’m just pointing out half the shit feminists these say is BS and they dont really fight for equality in any sense of the word. And I’m annoyed at the constant pressure of feminist trying to come after things I enjoy because they think it’s part of some patriarchy.
“Women have no business fighting for women’s rights unless they fight for men’s rights too! Men are too busy doing men things, damnit! Now get back to the street and protest me a law change.”
But yes, I think many feminists are going after anything they see because it pleases them to man hate.
Some people “love to hate”. That ain’t my trip. 
1 Like
[Post edited by mod]
You keep missing my entire point going into the logistics of conscription and putting words in my mouth. I don’t think women are stopping men from ending it. It’s not about me wanting to end it or have women join. It’s about how a blatantly sexist thing we legally make men do is never talked about for feminists here and yet they’ll get right in your face about the privileges of men. I can understand why feminist today don’t tackle things like males commit suicides are an alarming rate etc etc. because they might not be so obvious. But every women from Taiwan would have known men in their lives that had to go off while they never worry about it.
Feminists, are well, feminists. Their goal is to advance woman issues, and conscription is not a women’s issue.
1 Like
So there are things that concern them, and things that not.
Time to introduce mandatory conscription for women then. All those gender study classes can wait.
Isn’t it the point that men fight wars therefore men raise armies of men?
A bit chicken and egg and maybe it’s kind of Andrew’s point anyway; to deconstruct patriarchal societies we need women to also wage war? (In a physical sense, not in the sense of Maggie sending the boys off to the Falklands). Am I making any sense or do I need a stronger cup of tea?
1 Like
I don’t claim to have a perfect memory, Andy. But I seem to recall a very interesting thread titled “10 days a conscript”, a thread we thanked you for contributing. If you want to remind us how the medical/other exemption works, go ahead.
As for “only sexist law” vs. “only blatantly sexist law” or whatever the exact wording was, thank you for the clarification of your meaning, but I happen to believe 5 days vs. 56 days is blatant. (That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, and the fact that male conscription is sexist doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong either. And in case it’s not clear, I’m not saying these things are necessarily right either.)
You keep missing my entire point going into the logistics of conscription and putting words in my mouth. I don’t think women are stopping men from ending it.
You didn’t say that, and I didn’t say you said it. I said if it were true, you would have a point. If it’s not true (and it probably isn’t), then what’s your point? You claim you don’t even care about conscription (though you care enough to ad hominem me for bringing up your military record), yet feminists are hypocrites because they don’t care either… as far as you know… and obviously you went and did a survey first so you would know what you’re talking about before spending all this time and energy arguing about it, right?
If you care about gender equality – which apparently you don’t – or am I misunderstanding you? Anyway, if you care, next time you meet a Taiwanese feminist, here’s how you can help:
You know the sexist conscription law? It affects women too. It affects your brothers, your sons, your friends… And men would have greater appreciation for the hard work you do fighting for women’s rights if we knew you were standing in solidarity with us. So can my masculist friends and I count on you to support us in our struggle for men’s rights? 
You’re hypocrites! You want to take away my future video games! Your American friends want to steal funding from men’s sports! And you don’t care about something I don’t care about, but you should! And it’s all because you hate men! 
I’m tired of your passive aggressive little jabs and sarcastic comments you resort to that just fly by the rules but piss everyone off.
We all play by the same rules here, interpreted by the mod(s) of each particular forum.
If you can’t learn to control your anger in this context, my best advice is just to find something more productive/enjoyable to do with your time.
I wish you a pleasant day. 
Yes definitely
Go for it, Bear! 
Yes I’m making sense or yes get out the Yorkshire Gold?